Re: Adam as head + two creation accounts

Date: Thu May 02 2002 - 17:06:53 EDT

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: Black Sea Flood"


    I wrote: I do not reject a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. I read
    Genesis 1 quite literally (vs. metaphorically or symbolically). I just read
    it with the knowledge that some Hebrew words at the time Genesis was written
    had more than one meaning. The word "day" in Hebrew is "yom." It is widely
    acknowledged by scholars of the Hebrew language that "yom" was not just used
    by ancient Hebrews to refer to a 24 hour period of time. In
    fact, they tell us "yom" had "several meanings." And they inform us that one
    of its meanings was "a period of time of unspecified duration." (see Vines
    Dictionary of Biblical Words, 1985, pg. 54)

    You responded: Thanks for clarifying your position. How do you understand
    John 6 about
    Jesus insisting that they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood? Also in
    the context of the last supper, when he said, "This is my body...."?

    I'm not sure what your point is. I did not say that I understand every
    passage in the Bible literally. I said I understand Genesis 1 literally.
    Obviously there are many passages of scripture which were not meant to be
    understood in an entirely literal way. Many passages were certainly meant to
    be understood metaphorically, allegorically or symbolically. I don't believe
    Genesis 1 was. But that is just my opinion.

    I wrote: You may want to check the Hebrew. For the Hebrew refers to the trees
    the seed-bearers, not the fruit of the trees.

    I quoted the "The interlinear Bible" (Hendrickson Publishers 1986), which
    includes in its side column "A Literal Translation of the Bible" by Jay P.
    Green, Sr. That translation confirmed what I said. For it reads, "Every tree
    in which is the fruit of a tree seeding seed - it shall be food for you."

    You wrote: Can't comment on that, since I am not fluent in Hebrew. All I can
    say is that most modern translations seem to suggest otherwise:

    You then quoted several nonliteral translations.

    You don't have to be fluent in Hebrew to understand the point I was making.
    All you have to do is read Gen. 1:29 in a literal translation. A "literal"
    translation is one which does not change the content of the Hebrew or Greek
    in order to create more natural sounding English sentences. Such translations
    are often hard to read. Their goal is total accuracy rather than readability.
      All the translations you quoted are not "literal" translations.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 02 2002 - 17:37:15 EDT